Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!draken!matsl
From: matsl@nada.kth.se (Mats Luthman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: MS C vs Turbo C
Message-ID: <1894@draken.nada.kth.se>
Date: 6 Oct 89 17:07:44 GMT
References: <1727@naucse.UUCP> <2136@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: matsl@nada.kth.se (Mats Luthman)
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Lines: 9

In article <2136@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> daved@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (david.dougherty,sf,) writes:
>Company; I also bought the source.  Now, TeX and METAFONT are very large
>programs.  Turbo C choked.  MSC 5.1 compiled it without so much as a

Exactly what do you mean when you say 'choked'? My experience is that
Turbo C works. I have only dealt with MSC 4.0, and that was a complete
joke. 'Expression too complicated' and 'Macro expansion too long' all
the time where Turbo C compiled everyting fine (and many times faster
too).